[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Mon Aug 7 08:09:29 EDT 2017

The fact that we do not agree internally on the issue of Intellectual Property (IP) or even our statement of principles, specifically the central concept of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), puts us in an awkward position regarding any attempt to legally or morally enforce protection of our IP and branding. Furthermore, there may be adverse unintended consequences to legal exclusionary legal enforcement of IP or branding, as others have already pointed out.

I would propose that we take a free-market empowered-individual voice approach to any exclusionary and inclusionary actions. Regardless of whether you embrace or are not comfortable with the nudity caucus, use your personal option of economic and social ostracism to express your views and voluntary association to control your personal interaction with said caucus.

More importantly, and consistent with my bleeding-edge radical leanings, I firmly believe that an ‘Open Tent’ Libertarian Party will likely be far more successful in achieving freedom, nothing more, nothing less, than a party known for hair-splitting legal enforcement of IP and branding.

Thoughts?

~David Pratt

2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less

~David Pratt Demarest

Roads to Freedom Foundation, Founder

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

LPRC Board Member, Nebraska State Coordinator

David.Demarest at LP.org <mailto:David.Demarest at LP.org> 

Secretary at LPNE.org <mailto:Secretary at LPNE.org>  

DPDemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest at centurylink.net>  

DPrattDemarest at gmail.com <mailto:DPrattDemarest at gmail.com>  

Cell:      402-981-6469 

Home: 402-493-0873

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:34 AM
To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Causes exist to influence the Party and may be at odds at any point in the natural pendulum swing to any sitting LNC.  There is no emergency here. There is no issue - unless we really are panicked about a Nudity Caucus.  If there is ever any issue of actual fraud or actual misrepresentation we can handle that.

And it doesn't solve the problem.  So when say, the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus puts out something that most LNC members find objectionable - we revoke them?  Really?  No, this is a hole I will not climb in and bury us in dirt and hypocrisy.

Further this is unenforceable.  I will mention the elephant in the room. The Nudist Caucus is small and not even an active caucus.  It is mostly just a fun time on Facebook.  However there is a Caucus that was very active last convention and growing - the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus - of which I was until yesterday, a Board member.  Members have expressed that this *appears* to be a political move to silence minority voices that may be getting a bit too influential.  So if a caucus - for instance - decides they will not endorse any particular nominated candidate - we can then put the bad, bad, bad, we remove our seal from you move?  This is chilling.  It would be just as chilling if a bunch of flaming radicals were the majority and attempted to use state force to silence a Libertarian Party Moderate Caucus or something similar or to discredit them by saying "Oh they don't have our stamp of approval."

So back to the elephant.  The name Libertarian Party Radical Caucus has been in on and off use since 1970.  David Nolan specifically invited the formation of the first caucus to use that name.  And are we now going to threaten one or other of the factions in Oregon (an issue I consider closed and the recognized affiliate is the affilate, but some will not let it die).  That is awkward and poor form.  Will the Oregon PAC using our name be the first one to get a cease and desist letter or will it be the Libertarian Party Get Off your F**king Keyboards and Go Outside Caucus (yep that's another one).

No caucus should be forced to be "recognized" under threat of state force.  The barn door has long been left open on this.  It is too late.  I will be proposing a Bylaw amendment or outright deletion.

And if we go down the road to "officially" recognized, on what basis do we exclude the Nudist Caucus, or the Sex Caucus or whatever.... if they follow the criteria, unless we are going to engage in viewpoint prejudice - viewpoints which are perfectly within the Libertarian umbrella.  Or do we want to officially recognize them which seems to go against the OP that these groups are somehow using the Party illegitimately to build up their own image.  This reminds me of the (IMHO inappropriate) charge a few months ago that some LNC members were "using" the Facebook page - another thing that struck many as an internal Game of Thrones.

All I can say is, do we want strippers at convention?  Because authoritarian moves like this are how you get strippers at convention. Foolhardy and counterproductive.  

We don't have yet many ideas or a head of steam for the candidate guidelines, but yes, let's be sure to makes sure the nudists don't foul our name with their nakedness.  This will backfire and backfire badly.  This is not in the best interest of the Party.  Freedom means that people will do things we don't like - and yes, even smear us.  We don't pick up the gun in the room.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org <mailto:lpky at mu-net.org> > wrote:

I am not proposing to limit the use of the name.  I am, however, suggesting that the "wall of separation" between "recognized" and "unrecognized" cauci would probably accomplish the goal of preventing any damage, real or perceived, from any group not under the LNC's purview by drawing a very distinct line.

Just a thought.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net <mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

Ken,

I'd like to see more of a formal, active, and visible role for caucuses (I think that's the correct plural form!) in the Libertarian Party. While I appreciate Caryn Ann's concern about potential problems arising if the LNC were to get involved in deciding which caucuses to recognize, it doesn't necessarily seem more problematic to me than the LNC deciding which candidates or campaigns to fund. My main concern in both cases is that there should be some sort of clear, fair standard/process that upholds libertarian values and is consistently applied. 

Ideally, a greater role for caucuses would come about through a bylaws change rather than something we add to the LNC Policy Manual. As long as the Policy Manual is beyond the reach of delegates at national conventions to revise, every added area of LNC authority codified there represents a sort of end-run around the LNC being accountable to the members of the Libertarian Party. Sure, they can elect different LNC members every two years, but meanwhile the Policy Manual remains unaltered and in effect. (Kind of like how in the U.S. government, congressional power to make laws, set tax policy, etc., has been gradually usurped in practice by executive branch agencies and appointees issuing regulations, imposing fees, and so on.)

In any case though, recognizing caucuses and giving them official permission to use the Libertarian Party name, or logos, slogans, or memes that we've used, won't change the basic situation – there would still be other individuals and groups out there in the world that are not affiliated with the Libertarian Party of the United States using those terms or images. And trying to censor or prevent them from doing so would still be futile and a mistake, imho.

Love & Liberty,

                                     ((( starchild ))) 

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                          RealReform at earthlink.net <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> 

                                   (415) 625-FREE

                                     @StarchildSF

On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:

I would like to suggest a counter-proposal.

Perhaps, instead of seeking to stop some groups, we could instead adopt a policy on how to become an officially recognized caucus in the LP.  So we would have the ability to have separation from unrecognized cauci, and embracing of our recognized cauci. 

Creating such a system wouldn't be difficult. The rules and standards should be straight-forward enough, and the recognition can be terminated by either party at either time.  Recognition would be for specific time periods, and (obviously) renewable at the end of those time periods.  

Advantages: It's completely libertarian; we're choosing who to be associated with.  It also removes the question of IP from the scenario, which divides libertarians.  

I've also seen our members; the majority of them I would prefer to see only when clothed. But if they're libertarians who want to run around naked, then so be it.  Maybe the "two layers" caucus will pop up to counter them.

ken

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:

First - the sure way to make sure there are innumerable contraband memes is to insinuate legal action akin to Hillary declaring war on an internet frog,

>From a Region 1 member:

To the members of the LNC:

I am writing today to express my opposition to the suggestion that the LNC begin sending cease and desist orders for use of the Libertarian Party or logo for groups not officially recognized by the LNC.

The precedent that would be set would have consequences far reaching and would drive members away from association with the party. This would include me, as I have worked hard establishing a county affiliate, a member of a caucus, and as a candidate seeking the Libertarian nomination, all three of which would qualify me or my association to have legal action set against us.

1. Candidates are not recognized by the Libertarian Party until after nomination. The bylaw and logo suggestion put forth by Secretary Alicia Mattson that is being cited [5.1] would prevent someone like me, running a highly effective campaign, from using the logo branding, name Libertarian Party, etc. until nominated about 6 months from the General Election. 

This affects the branding image that is placed in voters' minds, and to effectively run a statewide or federal race, the candidate and their team would require one year to 18 months before the General to be effective in their efforts.

2. Non-partisan candidates who are Libertarians would not be able to run with the LP branding, because they are non nominated by parties. Some state laws actually don't allow for candidates to seek a party nomination for some races. However, my using things like the Eagle Torch, it fortifies a positive image of the Libertarian Party as people start to affiliate that image with one of action and good ideas.

3. County affiliates are not mentioned in the Bylaws, only states. This means that affiliates, like the one I chair, would fall subject to this enforcement action. This measure would centralize power and put the hard work of our volunteers as a waste. 

For the last two years I have Chaired the Libertarian Party of Weber County. We have done numerous outreach events and expanded dues paying members to the party at the state and national levels. We have advocated on behalf of Libertarian candidates, in many cases, paying for booth fees at events and inviting them to table with us to ensure they get exposure in the public

We are also recognized as one of the biggest pushing forces in a ballot initiative to have Medical cannabis on the ballot in 2018, including being a co-sponsor of a debate in Weber County for voters to hear the pros and cons. We help select the person to speak on the pro side, are putting some of our own funds forward to assist in it being aired, and are helping with the advertising. 

Having the catch all of not being recognized by you, puts us at risk with all our efforts. Grassroots is the name of the game in politics to motivate a dedicated base. As long as I am Chair, I will never ask permission from anyone to advocate for liberty.

4. All a caucus is, is a group of members (members of the Libertarian Party), who advocate issues that are acceptable by the the Statement of Principles. The example given by Alicia Mattson as one that must be shut down is the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus. So I ask you: who was harmed? If they advocate that people not be incarcerated for being nude, or "freeing the nipple" for women, where is the crime?

While I am not personally a member of this specific caucus, they are a specific issue focus group in the Libertarian Party. As they are members, and there is no violation of the Statement of Principles, there is no cause to go after them other than the fact that the Secretary finds this specific group distasteful.

I would rather explain to voters why it is important for the most extreme to exist than have a group silenced, censured, or sued.

5. How can the Libertarian Party simultaneously advocate against groups like Big Pharma in the use of the IP while going after their own membership for IP? Ask yourselves that before you vote. If you support the measure of Secretary Mattson, you are a hypocrite and will be called out for it.

Remember that each one of you were elected by the body of the Libertarian Party delegates, myself included. If you are going to take the authoritarian route, you will be fought and a group inclined to advocating liberty is going to defeat any one who pushes against us. We seek a world free in our lifetime, not a world where we cannot advocate for like-minded ideas using branding that is readily available for download. This helps the LP, it does not harm it.

In Liberty,

Craig Bowden

2016 National Delegate

Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Weber County

Candidate for US Senate

PROUD member of the Radical Caucus

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:02 PM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com <mailto:danielehayes at icloud.com> > wrote:

I sent that on accident during a pitstop when I stuck the phone in my pocket. It might have been a little Freudian.  It sums up what I think we need be saying relative to this subject. 

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com <mailto:danielehayes at icloud.com> > wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com> > wrote:

In light of this announcement, and I want to get this on the record before I speak, I notified the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus that I resign from my Board position in that group effective immediately  as this issue could cause an appearance of a conflict of interest as they may need to vote on any issue regarding this.  So my voting position in my disclosed conflicts in that group can be removed, I remain an active dues-paying member but have no vote in the governance. I remain the "owner" (as much as Facebook groups can be owned) of the discussion group Libertarian Party USA (Unofficial).  There are various inactive groups and pages I may "own" that also contain the name, but they are dormant.

Now that that is out of the way.

IMHO this is a complete waste of our time and unenforceable.  I will not vote to spend member money on this.  Here are some reasons:

While we are stuck in the statist system we have, claiming ownership over "words" - words that existed in a political context way before we were even formed is an unethical use of state force.  

There are records of groups doing this for decades - scattered all over the internet.  Selective enforcement waives that right and can raise the suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a politically motivated move.  And if we don't ferret out every single use and are selectively doing so (such as the nudist group above) it definitely will be seen as political and nannying.  

I will have to do research on this, but I remember a kerfuffle a while ago about the "trade mark" not being registered until after the horse was way out of the barn.  This came up in Colorado when we were discussing the implication of the Oregon issue and interference in the autonomy of affiliates of whether the LPCO had an independent right to its name.  

So we go after candidates now too?  Which are using the logo before even being an official nominee?  Really?  That's a great way to keep our logo from being spread.

No bueno.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com <mailto:agmattson at gmail.com> > wrote:

Oliver Hall's attention is requested for this email:

LP Bylaws, Article 5.1, "No person, group or organization may use the name "Libertarian Party" or any confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."

This provides a very narrow scope for use of our party name.  Yet one only has to search on Facebook for the name "Libertarian Party", and you will find many groups that are not the national party, and are not an affiliate of the national party, but they use our party name to increase their profile in search results, build their own following, and use the group for their own purposes.

One such example can be found here:  (fair warning - this page contains varying degrees of nudity)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/233590827023815/

We also have a trademark on the name "Libertarian Party".  My understanding of intellectual property law is that we need to actively defend our right to the name or else over time we diminish our ability to successfully defend it.

Our bylaws don't mention the logo, but am I correct to presume that we have also staked out a legal claim to our past and present logos?

I also see other groups (not our affiliates) using our logo in their memes, incorporated into their own logos, etc.

Some of these could potentially be rectified by merely asking the groups to cease using our name and/or logo.  Others might need to receive cease-and-desist letters from our attorney.

I'd like to discuss this at our upcoming LNC meeting.  Perhaps it makes sense to just make it part of the Special Counsel agenda item, since we'll likely want to chat with Mr. Hall about it.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>  

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> 

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> 

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> 

Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

We defend your rights

And oppose the use of force

Taxation is theft

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/d50b2777/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00012.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/d50b2777/attachment-0002.txt>